- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:31 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
If it takes a "dirty" judge to out the Trump/Hannity backchannel, then so be it. Democracy is at stak
And there it is.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:32 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Are you really going to run with this angle? Do you believe that officiating a wedding 5 years ago has tainted this judge in regards to this case?
Absolutely. I'm surprised you don't. You usually are at least somewhat objective
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:32 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
The Ole War Skule. And I concur. You?
Which one? JD or LL.M.?
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:34 pm to BBONDS25
JD. Federal clerkship. Decades of practice.
Again, you?
Again, you?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:37 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
Hannity not disclosing his relationship to Cohen is a far greater conflict of interest than a judge officiating a wedding of a well-known, wealthy, and powerful donor
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:37 pm to JudgeHolden
JD. Prosecuted for years. Clerked for a federal judge. LLM after.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:42 pm to BBONDS25
You seriously think that presiding over a wedding requires this judge to recuse on a privilege dispute?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:45 pm to themunch
Julius Rosenberg?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:46 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:Hah...Maybe he's a "lawyer" just like Cohen is a "lawyer?"
You seriously think that presiding over a wedding requires this judge to recuse on a privilege dispute?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:47 pm to themunch
Aldrich Ames?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:50 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
You seriously think that presiding over a wedding requires this judge to recuse on a privilege dispute?
Nope. But I think it deserves a look.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:51 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
Where did you earn your law degree?
Nah. If ole baw prosecuted and clerked, he’s gotta be taken more seriously than Cohen.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:51 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
Hah...Maybe he's a "lawyer" just like Cohen is a "lawyer
You are the same guy that makes homophobic slurs, right?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:52 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
Nah. If ole baw prosecuted and clerked, he’s gotta be taken more seriously than Cohen
Bud. Reading your posts. No way you are actually a lawyer. Just saying Do you claim to actually be a lawyer??
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:53 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Soros is not a cable news mouthpiece advocating for anyone nor is he connected to the judge or case in any official capacity. Sure, there's a conflict of interest in the eyes of a casual observant of the political sphere, but nothing that can be reasonably justified by the law. I wouldn't be surprised if Soros has a hand in this, but that's just conjecture unless more information comes to light. Hannity's guilt is far more probable given what we know.
Absolutely. I'm surprised you don't. You usually are at least somewhat objective
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:53 pm to PointsInCase
Where is your law degree from?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:53 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Nope. But I think it deserves a look.
If I agreed with you, and frankly I don’t, I’d point out that the chief judge of the SDNY chose Judge Wood to oversee this issue, and the chief judge is a Clinton appointee.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:54 pm to BBONDS25
My question, Hammity stated that all his conversations with Cohen were, were some legal advice involving real estate, mostly.
"dealt almost exclusively about real estate." was how he put it.
Still, he considered that discussion to be under the attorney-client privilege.
But Cohen's own attorneys submitted a letter a week ago - that was the fire-starter of all the nonsense today - where they listed a total of 10 clients Cohen had since starting his solo practice.
7 of those 10 involved legal work that "appears to be providing strategic advice and business consulting, for which privilege would not attach."
the remaining 3 clients were Trump, disgraced former GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy (who had Cohen negotiate $1.6 million in hush money to a Playboy model he impregnated, and then resigned his position with the RNC last week), and then someone else they refused to name.
That 10th and final Client was Hammity. Now, the first 7 clients were provided "services" very similar to what Hannity said was all he sought from Cohen. So why were the attorneys so desperate in federal court to keep Hammity's name a secret?
And if all Hammity sought from Cohen were real estate advice - that Hammity himself stated he assumed was confidential under the attorney-client privilege, even as he denied being a "client" of Cohen's - well that isn't really any different than what Cohen provided for those first 7 clients listed. But his attorneys stated that for them, "privilege would not attach".
So what is up here? Sure sounds awful fishy.....
"dealt almost exclusively about real estate." was how he put it.
Still, he considered that discussion to be under the attorney-client privilege.
But Cohen's own attorneys submitted a letter a week ago - that was the fire-starter of all the nonsense today - where they listed a total of 10 clients Cohen had since starting his solo practice.
7 of those 10 involved legal work that "appears to be providing strategic advice and business consulting, for which privilege would not attach."
the remaining 3 clients were Trump, disgraced former GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy (who had Cohen negotiate $1.6 million in hush money to a Playboy model he impregnated, and then resigned his position with the RNC last week), and then someone else they refused to name.
That 10th and final Client was Hammity. Now, the first 7 clients were provided "services" very similar to what Hannity said was all he sought from Cohen. So why were the attorneys so desperate in federal court to keep Hammity's name a secret?
And if all Hammity sought from Cohen were real estate advice - that Hammity himself stated he assumed was confidential under the attorney-client privilege, even as he denied being a "client" of Cohen's - well that isn't really any different than what Cohen provided for those first 7 clients listed. But his attorneys stated that for them, "privilege would not attach".
So what is up here? Sure sounds awful fishy.....
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:54 pm to Tiger in NY
quote:
In 1993 President Bill Clinton nominated her to become the first female Attorney General. But she withdrew from the nomination after the White House learned she had hired an undocumented immigrant as a baby-sitter. Wood, who was Clinton’s second choice for AG post, didn’t break the law employing the nanny and in fact paid the woman’s taxes. But the White House asked her to withdraw because her situation was similar to Clinton’s first AG nomination, Zoe Baird.
Oh damn, I remember that
Trump's ACP is DOA.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News